Timeline for How about a "Vote not to close" option to counter the "Vote to close"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:36 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| S Jun 27, 2016 at 11:52 | history | suggested | GlorfindelMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
broken link fixed (http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/280615/fix-broken-review-beta-links)
|
| Jun 27, 2016 at 11:04 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 27, 2016 at 11:52 | |||||
| Aug 16, 2012 at 22:17 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | Regarding your edit: the vast majority of disputed closed questions I see could - and should - be edited to address whatever issues are motivating the votes in the first place. That doesn't mean they should be closed - it means they should be edited. But everyone on the site can already edit - you really can't make that any easier. Combating one form of laziness by making another form of laziness more accessible is... Lazy. IMHO, if you don't care enough about a question to spend a few seconds editing it, it's no wonder you're struggling to come up with a comment arguing against closure. | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 21:57 | comment | added | Mechanical snail | @Shog9: Edited with more discussion. | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 21:56 | history | edited | Mechanical snail | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1817 characters in body
|
| Aug 16, 2012 at 21:50 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | Sure. Other ways to prevent toggling? Remove the close feature entirely. | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 21:39 | comment | added | Mechanical snail | @Shog9 (earlier): If people can easily dispute a close vote whose reason they think obviously doesn't match the specified question (and those are a non-negligible fraction of the queue), before the question gets closed, then there will be fewer questions that "flip between closed and open without any edits or discussion". | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 15:26 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | @curiousguy: anyone with a minimal amount of reputation can see the reasons chosen for closing. If those aren't obviously applicable to the question, then that's a pretty good argument against closing right there. Stop and think about what you're asking: you can't force anyone to leave a reason except by having them choose a reason from a list - which is already how closing works. | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 15:03 | comment | added | curiousguy | @Shog9 "to resolve these disagreements" So, those who disagree should at least explain why the question and the answer are not valid (linking to the FAQ explains nothing). "it's far more productive to work to a resolution than to simply disagree" Exactly. This which brings me back to my original point: a vote to close is a disagreement that the question is useful, so those who vote to close should be obliged to post a public comment explaining their vote. It is not possible to explain why the question should be kept not knowing why it should not be. | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 14:01 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | @curiousguy: are you arguing the system isn't working because sometimes folks disagree on what can be effectively answered (and what an "effective" answer is)? That's the entire point of having a system - to resolve these disagreements. Which brings me back to my original point: it's far more productive to work to a resolution than to simply disagree. | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 13:53 | comment | added | curiousguy | @Shog9 "Closing is a sort of limbo for questions that don't belong or can't be effectively answered in their current state" What about questions with good, accepted answers? What about questions with many good answers with really interesting data based on hard facts (not people POV)? They are closed sometimes (don't ask me how often statistically, I can't tell). Would people have to explain "please do not close because the question already has an answer"? Sometimes, the system is not working. | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 13:18 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | Disagreement by itself, @curiousguy. Closing is a sort of limbo for questions that don't belong or can't be effectively answered in their current state - an opportunity for improvement, discussion, and resolution prior to deletion. A question that repeatedly flips between closed and open without any edits or discussion is a waste of time for everyone involved. | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 12:37 | comment | added | curiousguy | @Shog9 "Because disagreement by itself isn't particularly productive." why is there a vote to close then? "vote to close" = "I disagree that this question should be there" = not particularly productive by your logic. | |
| Aug 15, 2012 at 23:01 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | Why should it be harder? Because disagreement by itself isn't particularly productive. Make a clarifying edit, post a comment explaining why the close reason is incorrect, refute the arguments of those who think it should be closed, start a discussion on meta... Those are all more useful activities than silently voting. This is part of the review queue as a way to clear out posts that don't need to be closed but have pending votes anyway (either because they were incorrectly voted on, or because the question was improved after the vote). | |
| Aug 15, 2012 at 22:47 | history | answered | Mechanical snail | CC BY-SA 3.0 |